GENEVA, Genève — Swiss agrichemical giant Syngenta and German chemicals group Bayer on Tuesday said they were taking legal action against the European Commission over its suspension of the use of an insecticide it blames for killing bees.

GENEVA, Genève — Swiss agrichemical giant Syngenta and German chemicals group Bayer on Tuesday said they were taking legal action against the European Commission over its suspension of the use of an insecticide it blames for killing bees.

...Syngenta said, stakeholders should "concentrate on practical solutions to bee health, which most experts agree is damaged by ... the loss of habitat and nutrition."

I happen to agree with Syngenta on this part.

Sure pesticides are to be banned BUT also REPLACED by a biodiverse agriculture, with fields surrounded by flowering plants, shrubs and trees.
Forest Gardening comes to mind. Using mulched permanent beds to avoid tilling and NPK fertilising as well as excess irrigating.

Birds ! We need all the declining species to come back in balance for pest control. Hell, we should get them back for their own sake out of compassion for all living beings. Birds need bushes and trees to thrive. Pest controling insects need continuous source of pollen and nectar.

Drugs are bad indeed but simply banning them without replacing it with a better solution is criminal and utterly stupid. How much are our EU politicians paid to better our future? What a joke.

Banning them is a part of the process that forces us to address all of the other issues you raise. It is the use of high powered fertilisers and insecticides as well as, more latterly, genetically modified organisms designed to achieve the same ends, that is the problem because these measures all allow us to believe we can continue with business as usual; All the way to the precipice. At which point we will no longer have any room for manoeuvre and will face total collapse of, not only our own civilisation and species, but also the rest of the global eco-system.

Think I'm being melodramatic? Right now, we are living through the biggest and most rapid mass extinction event since the Permian extinction, other wise known as "The great Dying", several hundred million years ago. In other words, this is the biggest mass extinction event, Earth has ever known.

If pesticides are removed, this will undoubtedly effect our food supply and will mean more expensive food. In which case, fine. The problem isn't pests, the problem isn't a alack of a few hedges and meadows (though these would undoubtedly help).

The problem is 7 billion humans, all whom either live or aspire to an industrial lifestyle. We are the problem.

Last edited by stevecook172001 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:28 am; edited 1 time in total

This is definitely a tricky subject (my entry for obviously statement of the week).
Che I would love to think that bayer et al are considering such things with their appeal but I think they are mostly trying to sell a product. The commission could reduce the impact on the companies involved and increase their buy-in by extending their intellectual property rights in the compounds by the same period of time any ban of suspension is in place, provided the companies support research into the effects in the field of these compounds. This would mitigate revenue loss to the company if the compounds are as safe as they state, and may increase their overall profits if those statements prove correct. I stress the research must be on effects in the field, because most work produced is not at colony level and in concentrations seen at actual use. The research I have read is so heavily tainted by bias to one cause of another I am embarrassed to call myself a scientist (phd pharmacology). The government reviews are equally as bad looking a no more 6 publications and basing a ruling on the general opinions of population or impact on the economy rather than proven affect.

Steve the problem I have is that in all the research I have read on this topic I cannot find any evidence to say that these products are any worse for bees than the alternatives that farmers will ultimately go to in their absence. It is silly to pretend that just because neos are banned farmers will say "yes, well .. I see I think I going to be organic then" or that the entire countryside will terraform into a more balance sustainable system. The only the thing, the ONLY thing that will change current practices is one shown to provide a better outcome in efficiency, yield, or return.

As much as our community's voices should be heard we can contribute much more usefully in providing real unbiased observations which do not start with "I feel that...", or "it is obvious to me..." etc and by helping to provide real alternatives to current practice that are a) effective, b) ethical,and c) realistic. I love the work that is done by the people of this forum in continuing to try and improve the conditions of their apiaries for the bees inhibiting them. The work of Phil et al on things like deep well floors to improve the bees' environment but also further understand the possible beneficial feedback mechanisms from other organisms is brilliant. We need relationships built with farmers and agriculture to work on similar mutually beneficial investigations to find the solutions Che and Steve talk about. This is in my opinion what the European commission should be facilitating, encouraging, and if required funding.

I totally accept that the banning of a given pesticide is just the plugging of one tiny hole in a mighty dyke that is leaking everywhere else. But, that's not a good moral reason not to plug it. Paradoxically, though, I suspect things will only begin to get better after they have got a lot worse. That is to say, the sooner our global industrial civilisation collapses under the weight of its own poisons and general degradation/depletion of the environment the better. It seems we are gong to have to hit the wall before we recognise it was even there.

My problem August, is not necessarily the specific toxicity of a specific pesticide product (though that may well be of short term paramount importance), my problem is with industrial civilisation. Actually, no, it's deeper than that. My problem is with civilisation

It's unsustainable.

(the irony of the fact that the products of that civilisation are also allowing me to say this to you is not lost on me).

I am of a scientific bent, AugustC, and so I am all for objective evidence in support of a given position. However, I would also argue that one problem with much of the practised, applied-science on the ground is that is is about solving specific problem in tightly defined areas. Consequently, whilst it may be valid to say that agent (A) has no toxic effect under environmental condition (B), this does not take into consideration the far wider picture of the effect of all of our human actions on the world when viewed as acting in concert. Though, there are some notable areas of science that attempt do this.

I guess what I am getting at is that it is the commercially-driven, applied-science sectors that are most guilty of the above lack of focus on the wider picture. So focussed, are they, on solving specific and tightly defined problems.

Last edited by stevecook172001 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:19 pm; edited 7 times in total

...Syngenta said, stakeholders should "concentrate on practical solutions to bee health, which most experts agree is damaged by ... the loss of habitat and nutrition."

I happen to agree with Syngenta on this part.

We have to start somewhere. Loss of habitat is caused in large part by mono-cropping and destruction of large areas by herbicides, pesticides and all the other "cides". GMO has also contributed to the loss of nutrition in plants.

The practical solution is to stop the main contributor, so we can start to heal the land. We can't begin to recover resources while the enemy is still plundering those same resources.

We have no choice but to try to manage population reduction ourselves in as humane a way as possible, no matter how difficult to implement, via a centrally managed and imposed family planning policy. We couldn't merely expect people to reduce their fertility voluntarily if they knew that other people may not volunteer to do the same. Nor could we impose it on some, but not others. To attempt to do either would be to put people in the classic "prisoner's dilemma" and such a policy of voluntary reduction of fertility or of differential imposition of it would surely fail. Thus, the only kind of policy that stands even a minuscule chance of success is one where everyone is transparently seen to be treated equally. Even then, I accept that this would be hard to coordinate, and certainly impossible to impose, above the national level. Nevertheless, we musttry.

If we don't attempt the above, no matter how impossibly difficult it may appear, in the next few decades at the latest (and it may already be too late as the Earth's living systems are now showing significant signs stress as a consequence of our already massive overshoot as a species. The problem with pollinators being merely one of those indicators), we will get population reduction of the less managed, more ancient variety otherwise known as war, famine, pestilence and disease.

Coming to a civilisation near you.

Last edited by stevecook172001 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:27 am; edited 1 time in total

Although we may be able to slow population growth, if you mean that population reduction will not come in a timescale that is short enough to make the sort of change that is needed, I agree.

Hence:

Quote:

The obvious place to start is with the end user

makes a lot of sense. Changing the attitude of consumers (now there's a word, says it all, really) can have very immediate effects on the whole system. For example, if folk were to shift their buying patterns towards bread from eco-friendly wheat, we would soon start to see significant change in farming practices._________________Gareth

Population is not the issue. The issue is 97% of all people work in offices, factories, shops, etc ... and only 3% if farming. Those 3 % cant feed so many people without the use of oil and large scale mono-agriculture. (Full Stop)

We need more folks giving up their "office work" and get back to land to grow food on a small scale, organic food, sold localy.

We need at least 30% of humanity to do this.

Hence my wife and I selling our city apartment and buying a small farm (be the chage ...)

Many talk about "change" yet are unwilling to let go of the "system".
We need to strike a balance between the "system" and self-reliance. Only that way can nature be fixed. At the moment we entirely rely on the "system" and as soon system starts collapsing we start be filled with fear and uncertainty.

Not so if you are a self-reliant householder. Not so if such householders create a supporting community helping one another localy.

Pointing fingers at the 3% farmers trying to feed the rest, uet you yourself depend on their production is not helping. Instead do your best to start an organic farm, based on biodiversity, selling food localy.

Bottom line is;
We need more small scaleorganic farmers. Are you up for it or are you going to continue pointing fingers at the bad guys feeding the entire population?

Nobody on this thread, as far as I have read, has specifically pointed the finger at farmers. Farmers must simply operate in the economic environment they find themselves in.

Secondly, you say that people are unwilling to let go of the system and so, by implication are somehow culpable for their predicament. Go and tell that to a low wage earner in the middle of Leeds who must economically survive and raise a family in a dense, urban sprawl of public housing on minimum wage. Go and tell her how she is supposed to let go of the system and make the "change".

Your idea that we all just go back to the land and start growing and selling organic turnips to one another is about 6 billion people too late I'm afraid. If our access to fossil fuels, which are now implicated in every morsel of food the majority of humanity consumes, were to stop tomorrow, we would not be able to slide back to some rural idyll circa 1750 because we have already damaged the land too far for that. The soils are now so massively depleted of nutrients and supportive bacterial/fungal eco-systems that we can only keep them going via an annual replenishment with hydrocarbon derived fertilisers. Even then, we must further supplement productivity with a massive annual application of pesticides, themselves indirectly supported, researched, developed, distributed and applied off the back of our hydrocarbon-fuelled economic systems. In other words, given the dreadfully parlous state of our lands, in the absence of hydrocarbons, we couldn't even hope to feed the global population of 700 million that existed in 1750, never mind the 7 billion that exist today.

I'm not decrying your own personal decision and capacity to go back to the land yourself. Good luck to you. I think you are making a wise personal choice and one I would make myself if the opportunity arose. But, don't delude yourself that you are setting any kind of example that the rest of humanity will be able to follow. It's far too late for that I'm afraid.

And yet.....We must go back to the land, in the end. The problem is, our civilisation is going to have to collapse first. To that end, anything that aids that collapse along is a good thing. Removing industrial pesticides will improve the biodiversity that is necessary for a post industrial world. Their removal, also, will undoubtedly make it more difficult to continue with that industrial world. As far as I am concerned, good, that's another nail in the coffin. Another step closer to a sustainable future for life on earth, including humans.

Our destination is certain and is one we have no choice but to arrive at. Just don't delude yourself that the journey is it is going to be anything other than messy and brutal and that a lot of humans are not going to make it to the other side.

Last edited by stevecook172001 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:56 am; edited 5 times in total

Banning them is a part of the process that forces us to address all of the other issues you raise.

Surely it is the industrial farming model with large monocrop deserts such as I see if I cycle out of Cambridge in any direction that dictate to farmers that they use these or other poisons on their crops? If you have smaller fields with wider margins predatory insects that can prevent pests becoming a problem will be present i sufficient numbers. When single fields are larger than many farms used to be it becomes very difficult to manage without pesticides.

Of course, unless the financial incentive to stick with the status quo is addressed then that won't change.

Yes, indeed, it is the industrial farming model that forces individual farmers to adopt industrial farming methods. They have absolutely no economic choice whatsoever but to submit to that model. If they don't they will be out-competed and will be put out of business.

And yes, I agree, the change must be imposed from above with regulations in order that farmers and other players are not placed in the prisoner’s dilemma of being individually economically penalised for doing the right thing.

Last edited by stevecook172001 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:00 am; edited 1 time in total

You see Im not that sort of people who give up the fight before the battle is over

I was a front line soldier in bosnia for 2 years and 4 days. I remember when our line started falling under an enemy attack. There was panic all over the place, our soldiers running away ... 16 of us decided not to run away, since we knew very well that if we all start running the whole line will fall down like a Domino. And this would result not just in loosing this front line, it would also result in loosing the near by city which would endanger all the civilians living there.

4 bunkers were taken by the enemy. To take so many bunkers 300 soldiers are used in an attack. 16 against 300. You might choose to run as many did because "its too late".

We fought for 12 hours and returned all 4 bunkers and reestablished our line. I lost several kg that day since we didn't eat and adrenaline was pumping fast.
We took back the line against all odds.

The battle is over when the battle is over. Not before that. Despair will not help. It will only demoralise others. So if you don't want to fight at least let others do it in your stead. Putting them down with "its too late" is not helping.

Pesticides exists ONLY because of the mono-crop agriculture model!
That model exists ONLY because of our "american dream" life style!

We all want to live so we can buy good cars, have nice houses, work in an office, go on holidays, drink in pubs, have nice clothes, etc ... ... ... and at the end of the day we want to buy our food in the local supermarket.

We want MORE!

All this can disappear if we realise that LESS IS MORE.

The real change will not come at once, but one person at a time. I know that my neighbour got inspired by my example of growing food and she started a garden this year finding much joy in it. You too could inspire your neighbour like this. That would make 4 of us already and I'm sure many more are doing out there like the Dervaes family and many others I sure.
They didnt come to this point by thinking "its too late"

Population is raising because of the the modern medicine science. More people are being saved from dying.
We constantly multiply but the dying rate is not increasing... JUST YET

The population started increasing fast ... what ... 50 years ago? Yet people on average live 60-70 years. Soon enough the population is going to reach balance between Birth and Death rates. I'm guessing 10 billion will be the constant and will not raise above.

- We need a gardening method which needs little to no irrigation, little to no fertilisation, little to no pest control. A method based on covering the soil with hey, wood chips, etc ... Back to Eden demonstrates this well.

- We need a way to grow some food in winter as well as is demonstrated in those Greenhouse Domes

- Forest gardening is another method to implement into the small scale organic farming to create a rich biodiversity, strong continuity of flowering paradise for all the insects.

The soils are now so massively depleted of nutrients and supportive bacterial/fungal eco-systems

please know that even deserts can be made fertile again ... it takes only 20 years for the desert and much much less for our soils, maybe a few year at most by applying cover material like hey and wood chips.

Quote:

Secondly, you say that people are unwilling to let go of the system and so, by implication are somehow culpable for their predicament. Go and tell that to a low wage earner in the middle of Leeds who must economically survive in a high rise block of flats on minimum wage. Go and tell her how she is supposed to "let go of the system".

Im off to my garden now to harvest Beets and give some to my neighbours as well I'm sure you too would enjoy having such a neighbour coming to you during the season with home grown Lettuce, Tomatoes, Beets, Turnips, Squash, Pumpkins, etc ...

And even if it truly IS TOO LATE I rather die in my boots with a rake in my hands knowing that I fought to the VERY END.

The battle is not over until it is actually over
These Honey Bees fought to the end. They didnt say "its too late";
http://youtu.be/cMzt0EOF0IU

Che, I'm not saying the battle can't be won and shouldn't be fought. I'm saying that in order to win it, the costs are going to be far more terrible than you seem to be suggesting. I'm not counselling despair. I am counselling against false optimism, because that is even more dangerous. Above all, I am counselling realism

I'm also not saying that individuals such as yourself (and myself if I get the chance) should not make preparations by setting themselves up self sufficiently in food production and forming small, tight-knit communities that will look after each other during the terrible storm to come. I'm saying that these are only ever going to be strategies for the lucky few. There are just too damned many humans for this kind of "solution" to scale up to 7 billion.

Have you actually considered, for example, that whilst the carbon footprint of the average Westerner is far higher than an average person from a developing country, the ecological footprint of the person from the developing country will possibly, in some cases, be higher than an average Westerner. This is because hydrocarbons mitigate our ecological footprint here in the West because we can grow more food on less land using industrial, hydrocarbon-fuelled farming methods. Of course, none of this takes into account the fact that our massive hydrocarbon use is slowly frying the planet and that this, in turn, is having long lasting and deep ecological repercussions. But you get my drift.

Have you ever seen "Surviving Progress"? - Not sure if it is available to watch online at the moment.

When we're being sold a notion of progress which is destroying us, in our money and 'success' and expansion-focussed culture, all those who're doing their utmost to hold out against this cultural hypnosis are bound to feel that they are on their own, even if they are, in fact, many in numbers. - I feel it's so important for us to be supportive of each other, in spite of smaller differences. That's one of the reasons why I like this forum.

As has been pointed out, there are also lots of other dissatisfied people who feel they are just locked into the status quo, for all sorts of reasons. (In the short-term, given where we are at the moment, if a solution to someone's pest problems is offered which doesn't sound immediately economically viable for them, it's not likely to be accepted, is it...)

Would even the closest look into the abyss from the very brink make society, rather than individuals, separately, step back and try to change course though? This is the alarming thing! (Didn't some of us naively hope, with the panic about global financial catastrophe in recent years, that at least some much needed fundamental changes or rethinking might even take place? And have they?)

- You feel nowadays that positive cultural changes, and counter-culture movements, just can't be fast enough!

The darkest abyss to face is our own mind. I am fortunate enough to have found the way to plunge into it. The tool im using is a Theravadan meditation technique.
Thanks to this technique I light up the darkness with a shining light of awareness.
Thanks to this technique I, once a conventional and ignorant urban pub dweller, ended up on a path to nature.

You are not giving me hard time my friend, to your self maybe and to those put down by the words "its too late"

Excellent discussion. We must ALL think about these things, unpleasant though some of those thoughts may be. The alternative to change is change. The only question is whether we take control of the change or let the change take control of us. The first will not be easy, the second will be considerably worse.

Conserving wild bees

Research suggests that bumble bee boxes have a very low success rate in actually attracting bees into them. We find that if you create an environment where first of all you can attract mice inside, such as a pile of stones, a drystone wall, paving slabs with intentionally made cavities underneath, this will increase the success rate.

Most bumble bee species need a dry space about the size a football, with a narrow entrance tunnel approximately 2cm in diameter and 20 cm long. Most species nest underground along the base of a linear feature such as a hedge or wall. Sites need to be sheltered and out of direct sunlight.